I think you are still misreading the information. Mauritius is not imaginary, it is a volcanic island east of Madagascar. The discovery of zircons [intrusive igneous formations that form the core of continental masses] beneath the lava surface is an indicator that the island was previously connected to a continent. The further identification of its continental bedrocks with those of Madagascar is a very strong indicator of the two islands having once been joined; and further evidence of similarities with the African continent and Indian subcontinent would have jump-started the continental drift theory if it hadn't already been formulated.

Robertus Maximus wrote:The fact remains, evidence of continental crust is found where there should be none. Continental material is considered to have been recycled through deep mantle convection- how likely is this? Continental crust was originally thought to ‘float’ over the denser oceanic crust and upper mantle, now ‘lost continents’ are being recycled in the mantle. Over the past 50 years evidence that would subduct the theory has been woven into its fabric. From simple beginnings the plate tectonic paradigm, in the light of new evidence, has grown increasingly complex as geologists continue to add more and more epicycles, error is better than confusion.

Quite contrarily, the finding of continental crust on Mauritius is exactly what one would expect. The rest of your paragraph is simply not founded. What "epicycles" are you referring to? What evidence against continental drift are you reading about, and who are the researchers presenting it? I have been studying the continental drift theory since the publication of magnetic striping at the mid-ocean rifts in 1970, and am not aware of any controverting evidence for the concept of seafloor spreading. Alternate theories galore, and I have one of my own, but what evidence can you cite?

Plate Tectonics in its earliest form posited the existence of 12 plates comprising the Earth’s crust, at the last count it was 52. Tectonists add new plates to account for newly discovered features that require hitherto unknown and imaginary plate motions; so much for the predictive power of the theory.

Thankfully, alternative theories do exist. I lean towards the ideas of Russian geologists, for obvious political reasons the Plate Tectonic hysteria never made it to the former Soviet Union. Russian geologists never experienced the ‘Fear Of Missing Out’ need to publish papers on the subject. Western geologists who published evidence contrary to the consensus found themselves marginalised- today they would be labelled ‘deniers’. I’m interested in the work of V. N. Larin and I. A. Rezanov, see: http://www.ncgt.org/

One area I disagree with the geologists at the New Concepts in Global Tectonics group is that many continue to view the Earth as being essentially isolated from its environment (although there are signs of some changes) hence the requirement for a primordial internal heat source, Earth expansionist see the Earth as a closed system when it is know that Earth is losing material to its environment. I see the relationship between the Earth and its environment as an open system and THE driver of global tectonics.

RM,I'm not sure what proposals about recycling continental material through the mantle you might be referring to, I don't hold to such a view. Aside from that, you and I are looking at [or at least reading about] the same geological evidences. I have kept up on NCGT articles over the years and appreciate the great contributions of geologists like CW Hunt, and Blot, et.al. I have disputed the gradualist interpretations of continental drift along with many others. But I part ways with what seems to be many of the authors' entrapment in the paradigm of 100-million-year ages for the earth and its formations. I disagree with many of Darwin's arguments and less with Kelvin's. I appreciate the open debate on the Plate Tectonics paradigm, and have participated on both sides of that debate for a number of years. Why "both sides"? Because when it comes to the catastrophist paradigm over the gradualist/uniformitarian view, there are some findings that support the catastrophist view from both camps. I am not definitively opposed to "subduction", but I'm not a supporter; it simply is not necessary in my view. So though I am a "mobilist" [ie. I support continental drift], I agree with not all but many of the arguments against the standard [uniformitarian] model of PT. I have a view of magnetic striping which does not require what I consider the impossible requirement of magnetic pole reversal, and have argued so numerous times around these threads. My reading of much of the plate tectonics debate leaves me still an adherent to the drift scenario, albeit a rapid catastrophic version, though not as super rapid as the model proposed in Fischer's "shock dynamics."

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Thanks for the link to http://www.ncgt.org/ RM, I'll be looking at the site in depth. The mobile plate theory to me seems absolute madness, though it also seems there are a good number of TB members who fully accept the idea.

Plate Tectonics in its earliest form posited the existence of 12 plates comprising the Earth’s crust, at the last count it was 52.

As well as more plates, they are also now suggesting mid-plate cooling to account for motions determined by GPS that do not conform to the overall motion model. Whatever next.The expansive, deep sediments at some locations are, IMO, not from mechanical erosion by floods or aeolian or glacial action, but are the material that was removed by the large scale electrical forces occurring at some unknown, but not necessarily millions of years ago events.

In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Gary,The NCGT stuff is good. Just remember they are fighting a paradigm within a paradigm. Applying gradualist conclusions to a catastrophic scenario can be very tricky. I've been sorting out that for over 40 years now.

But I'm a bit confused... why is the finding that there are more plates or subdivisions of plates a bad thing for plate tectonics theory?

And in a rapid drift scenario, why would mid continental "cooling" [ie. compaction/contraction] be a detractor from the concept of ongoing continental movement?

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

webolife wrote:But I'm a bit confused... why is the finding that there are more plates or subdivisions of plates a bad thing for plate tectonics theory?

And in a rapid drift scenario, why would mid continental "cooling" [ie. compaction/contraction] be a detractor from the concept of ongoing continental movement?

No amount of contradictory evidence can falsify the theory- new plates are simply invented.

However, simple mathematics should have been enough to invalidate the theory, N. Christian Smoot writes: ‘Measurements with a compass yielded 74,000 km of midocean ridges. In theory, spreading is happening on both sides of the ridges, so new seafloor is produced is produced along 148,000 km of the spreading centers. In theory, that much linear distance in convergent margins must exist to keep Earth from having a middle-age spread leading to another “big-bang” situation. There is not; there are only 30,500 km of subduction zones and 9,000 km of collision zones, only about one fourth the amount of spreading ridges.’ Furthermore, ‘there is no rational explanation of why stresses involved in the up-welling of magma should suddenly turn from vertical to horizontal at the surface…’ .

The degree of coordination between mantle currents, ridge-push and slab-pull to maintain a constant radius Earth would be unimaginable. Of course, with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics the whole process is overseen by a supernatural being so this problem is easily resolved.

Any form of non-supernatural catastrophic Plate Tectonics would not only face the afore mentioned problem but the additional level of precise distant synchronous events needed during an accelerated phase of plate movement should, in my opinion, cast doubt on the whole process of plate movement in any scenario.

Furthermore, ‘there is no rational explanation of why stresses involved in the up-welling of magma should suddenly turn from vertical to horizontal at the surface…’ .

That's what I was trying to get my head around a week or two ago.

Haha, some theories to overcome this problem have suggested the force of gravity acting on each side of the mid oceanic ridges, which are sometimes 10000 feet above the approx 7 km thick basalt oceanic crust, these collapsing halves of the ridge are supposed to be subsiding downwards, thereby creating a lateral thrust away from the 'spreading' rift, the upwelling magma driving them apart like a wedge.....

To mess up this tidy theory are the lack of sufficient subduction zones, and the sometimes 20km wide mid ocean rift ***valleys....

and then at the sometimes non visible 'subduction zone' the oceanic crust which floats everywhere else, now sinks downwards steeply at approx 45 degrees, sinking down through the previously supporting magma, like a swimmer that has lost his floaties, and this 'sinking' pulls the 'slab away from the spreading 'divergent zones'... the overall mechanism is supposed to be friction, of 'magma cells' or 'convection' which is somehow turning like a rotary engine in just the right places... I think an expert on mythology should like this subject...

I can't believe there would be enough energy in this model to drive the entire continents of Africa and South America apart especially when you consider there is rock wall to wall right round the planet, and there are no 'subduction' zones surrounding Africa or Antarctica...

In that model too, I wouldn't expect to see deep ocean trenches like the Marianas or Tongan trenches, which are very deep and ***empty... I would expect to see buckling like the Himalayan uplifting, instead the whole ocean bed is supposed to be quietly 'slipping under' the next 'plate'... I just can't believe this model of widespread subduction

"It is estimated that 20 volcanic eruptions occur each year along earth's mid-ocean ridges and that every year 2.5 km2 (0.97 sq mi) of new seafloor is formed by this process. With a crustal thickness of 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.24 mi), this amounts to about 4 km3 (0.96 cu mi) of new ocean crust formed every year." (these seem to be dodgy numbers to me... and probably understating how much crust is formed... the spreading in other studies seems to be about 5 to 10 cm per year all over the planet...

PS notice how the spreading vectors inside South America seem to suggest the west coast and the east coast are converging... must be mountain folding happening, but the west coast has a deep trench, the drifting movement of the Andes eastward shown on the map is away from the Chilean trench which is located to the west of the Andes.... yet the 'turning edge' of the Nazca plate takes a nose dive into the magma on the western side of the Chilean Trench, which remains deep and empty... what theory can account for this?

I can sort of understand the proposed uplifting by the deep sea oceanic crust 'diving under' the Andes, but the Chilean trench remains ***empty, its western wall should feel the full force of the Nazca slab from the Pacific which is 'drifting' eastwards and simply butt up against the eastern wall... this whole Nazca plate has apparently enough force to 'uplift' the Andes. At the same time the plate just chickens out, leaves the trench intact and 'dives' into the underlying magma on the ***western edge of the Chilean trench... if the plate is moving laterally, meets a solid wall of continental crust, how can a trench not be squashed flat at it's crushed against the wall of the South American continental shelf?

...in the latest tectonic theory the plate is supposed to abruptly turn and start sinking when it 'crashes' into the continental plate with its Andean mountains, not start doing its diving thing to the west of the trench?... It has to still have enough energy to lift the mountains ***and move them eastwards, without collapsing the trench....

I would expect the Chilean trench to be filled to overflowing with rock from the base of the Andes if indeed the Nazca plate was 'lifting' the Andes by an west to east lateral movement originating far to the west of the trench...

I'm finding it hard to get my head around the feasibility of this hypothesis....It's even harder to understand what is going on at the Mariana or Tonga trench, the same pre-trench diving is supposed to be happening at these trenches, the lateral floating drifting oceanic crust changes its mind and its physical properties, decides it wont float any more just because it butts up against a ***trench, so then becomes heavy, and sinks into tartarus, leaving the trench deep and empty

South America underwent uplift during a fly-by by another planet. Also the bottom of South America and the adjacent peninsular of Antarctica, appear to have undergone a horizontal stress. It is possible that South America and Antarctica were joined which would show in ocean bottom sediments.

There is world-wide evidence of subsidence and mountain forming in this one event. Although the datings probably won't match.

Hi Moses,I've read a lot of bible, first time I've talked to Moses face to face so to speak

I don't have a problem with expansion cracks in the earth's crust, I currently believe the reason for the expansion and mid ocean ridges is the result of a decay of the gravitational constant (big G) as explained by Pascual Jordan as a result of P A M Dirac's gravitational hypothesis...

I'm not a mathematician or physicist, but I feel that Dirac and Jordan have the best, simplest, most reasonable theory so far... They have to rank way up there amongst the best mathematicians the world has ever known.... The simple hypothesis of Dirac could even extend to a former moon of Jupiter becoming 'detached' and then moving to another orbit with severe shakeups on the way, as proposed by Immanuel Velikovsky, since Dirac's hypothesis leads to all sorts of time related changes in cosmology... including gradual increases in each moon's orbit, even planetary orbital changes. Dirac's theory leads to explosive vulcanism on the earth, why not an even bigger event on Jupiter?

Maybe the giant red spot on jupiter is the clouds swirling around a giant crater where Venus got ejected... I don't know...

I would also like to find out how close in theory a large planet could come, and then have some clever people explain to me why it could or couldn't have happened...

I've read about the problems of the possible capture of the moon by the earth, apparently it needs a third body, which straight away makes it more interesting and then why not toss in Mars as well...

I've seen Maxlow's graphics on youtube, but they are a bit blurry and difficult to see what's going on, since I think he used cloth models or some physical modelling like that.. I've also seen that chappie in New York, the graphic artist Neil Adams? (from memory) Both these guys in my opinion get into difficulties because they have to have some exotic physics to explain where all the 'new' matter is coming from to expand the earth... Dirac's hypothesis doesn't have this difficulty, no new matter ex nihilo, no continent even moves, only expansionion in the ocean floors....Neil Adam's graphics seem like they could be tweaked up a bit, but that's just my eye, I haven't yet seen a good mountain folding demo yet as it would happen under an expansion model, I believe there is evidence just looking at the age of the ocean floors, in the southern latitudes, it seems obvious that as the original crust split like an orange peel as it was stretched over an expanding geometry, the southern tips of the continents are all pointed, the northern hemisphere has most of the continental crust, only 32% or so in the southern hemisphere, so the ocean floors in the south have had to do more stretching, you can see the previous mid pacific rift has split in many places, and the forces of this expansion have cause lateral tears ie rips, not the wet stuff that comes out of your eyes... so the distortion at the pointy end of South America still fits in with this model without cosmic flybys... but who knows for sure, were you there? As God said to Job

(only 32% of continental shelves in southern hemisphere)

I read an arc welding mountain building web site recently which is extremely convincing, with harmonics built into the mountains as they were formed leaving hard rock evidence... I believe as someone said, can't remember at the moment, these forces that form and distort mountains leave hard evidence in the shapes and minerals and layers themselves'

To my eye, there is evidence of a big twist just northwest of Pakistan, and then over towards the headwaters of the Mekong northern Thailand and South West China, curved and folded mountains in a very definite pattern.. also the Tonga trench, near Samoa there is a big twister set in cement...yeah and that pattern between Tierra del Fuego and Antarctica... I would like to do some modelling to see what it looks like in 3D (better than 2D) 4D is even better ....

Does anyone know how to do a multiple planet scenario as a python script? I would like to see what it looks like in my 3D software, preferably sound gravitational for a start.. but I suppose that electric physics could be fun too

As long as it's got some reasonable basis in physics, I want it to have been possible... then we can look at it and see what we think.. I'm an artist, I like to see things graphically

I read the people who had done a possible set of orbits for the planets in response to Velikovsky's proposal were called C H Ransom and L H Hoffee, but I only have them in 2D and no mathematical formula

sketch wrote:... the western side of the Chilean Trench, which remains deep and empty...I would expect the Chilean trench to be filled to overflowing with rock from the base of the Andes if indeed the Nazca plate was 'lifting' the Andes by an west to east lateral movement originating far to the west of the trench...

You are failing to take into account the rotation of the continents caused by the magnetic torque inherent in Coulombic Convection (Juergen's charge convection). Remember the Right Hand Rule.

The motions we see at the surface are not from just simple thermal convection, like a boiling pot of water. The reasons are because Earth is a revolving, orbiting, charged, magnetic planet with internal heat.

To make sense, one must also consider Coulomb charge repulsion, thermionic emission, magnetic fields and plain old spin.

<I would also like to find out how close in theory a large planet could come, and then have some clever people explain to me why it could or couldn't have happened... sketch1946>

A planet is surrounded by a magnetosphere and there is a double layer on the edge of that magnetosphere. This is plasma physics. When a planet approaches another planet then the magnetospheres will contort, but if the two magnetospheres touch then electricity flows in abundance. A double layer is an area where there is a big change in electric potential.

So before two planets can physically touch there is a period of very strong electrical current passing between them. And the closer they get the stronger will be the electrical current. Theoretically the force generated by such a current can be enough to avoid a collision in a near-hit scenario.

Which infers that such a current could easily push a continent up, down or sideways. Thus we put the formation of the Andes and Rockies, for instance, down to a planetary interaction.

I have suggested on this thread an electrical alternative to both Plate and Expansion Tectonics. Gathering the works of other researchers in one place I have attempted to synthesize a new approach to understanding global tectonics. I have suggested that the decreasing strength of the Earth’s magnetic field is due to the Earth electrically adjusting to its environment and that either the Earth has ‘recently’ arrived at its present orbit or the environment has ‘recently’ changed.

I have suggested that the Earth could well be hollow and described surface features that would be problematical to mobile tectonic theories if, as I suggest, they are relics from the formation of the Earth itself.

I have suggested that the Earth carries a significant electric charge and this charge is responsible for the planet’s magnetic field; furthermore it is a charge exchange process that powers tectonic activity but it doesn’t stop there earthquakes and volcanoes are just the beginning we also find all manner of atmospheric activity participating in the discharge.

With this in mind, how might we approach Earth’s Twin- Venus? How might this proposal explain features associated with our nearest planetary neighbour?

First we will take a look at the Earth’s past and present electrical environment.

Earth

The Earth is collecting charge from its environment from an initial or earlier electron deficient state. During its formative period and for most of Earth’s history the Earth possessed a low internal polarisation accompanied by low surface gravity. We can speculate that as the Earth was deficient in negatively charged electrons, any magnetic field present would have arisen due to the rotation of a positive ‘ionic’ magnetic field if you will - the polarity of this magnetic field would have been opposite to the magnetic field we find at the Earth’s surface today.

It was under conditions present during this initial and prolonged electron deficient state that life arose, speciated and evolved.

Furthermore, Earth’s interior contained and still contains vast quantities of hydrogen, hydrocarbons, helium, ammonia, oxygen and water. Over time these chemical elements have welled-up through the porous structure of the Earth’s mantle and crust transforming the planet itself. Today we find hydrocarbons continue to well-up, issuing from ‘recently’ rejuvenated fractures and volcanoes in the upper crustal layers, at the surface they are oxidised forming water and leaving behind pure carbon (i.e. coal). Silane along with methane emerges from great depths, like methane silane is oxidised in the upper layers but forms silica and releases hydrogen.

I have previously suggested that large areas of a pre-existing hemispheric sized continent collapsed due to a possible series of encounters with an errant celestial body. These formerly stable areas collapsed due to serpentinite dehydration triggered by electrical instabilities. Accompanied by vast basaltic outflows or ‘traps’, huge quantities of saline water from the lower crust flooded the new depressions.

The low gravity environment of the past is no more. Earth, somehow, has experienced a large increase in charge, this has resulted in amongst other factors and following on from Wal Thornhill’s work, an increase in internal polarisation and an increase in surface gravity. The increase in surface gravity proved problematical for many species of large land/ air animals leading to their extinction.

Given the radial alignment of charge in the inner Earth it is not unreasonable to assume that Earth’s deep interior is still electron deficient. Due to the Earth’s rotation this inner ‘shell’ would continue to produce a magnetic field of opposite polarity to the one we find at the surface an ‘ionic’ magnetic field. The far more mobile electrons are to be found, not exclusively, but predominately in the Earth’s upper layers, atmosphere and magnetosphere their movement with the rotation of the Earth generates the normal polarity ‘surface’ magnetic field, we can think of this magnetic field as an ‘electronic’ field. Indeed, as we have already seen the oxidisation of upwelling hydrocarbons forms water, free saline water in the lower crust would be an excellent conductor.

But we have already speculated that this was not originally the case, is it possible that the Earth functioned as an anode during a period of solar system instability?

If an errant celestial body that carried a more negative charge, with respect to the Earth, approached and their respective plasma environments clashed then a period of charge exchange would ensue. Electrons would be drawn from the approaching body, on impacting the Earth’s surface they would ionise whatever they came into contact with. The liberated ions would rush back to the electron source. Vast quantities of surface material would be removed from the Earth’s surface. As the number of electrons penetrating the Earth’s upper layers steadily increased the internal polarisation and surface gravity would increase. Areas of the Earth’s surface affected by the initial removal of material would be susceptible to structural failure as the surface gravity gradually increased.

As the newly arrived electrons diffused through the Earth’s upper layers the rotation rate would have slowed with disastrous consequences with large areas inundated by ocean tidal waves (the rotation rate would have slowly increased following the encounter due to charge being ‘leaked’ back to the Earth’s environment provided the environment had not altered too much).

On resumption of a ‘normal’ rotation period it would be noticeable that the magnetic field was now reversed- the ‘electronic’ field we see today, the new magnetic field would leave its mark upon the old magnetic field in time geologists would erroneously see this change as multiple reversals and attach magnetic anomalies to a fictional timescale.

Of course, as I have previously suggested this event may not have occurred in a single encounter, a number of such exchanges may have occurred. If the relative potentials between the two bodies changed as a result of the previous encounter then sometimes Earth would act as an anode other times as a cathode. What we can say is that Earth, once electron deficient is no longer so and such an encounter has left the Earth at least ‘peaceful’ if not totally ‘at rest’ with its environment.

To look for a suitable candidate as a cause of this disruption in my opinion we need look no further than the Moon but the inner solar system shows plenty of anomalies if, as we are told, nothing has happened for 3 billion years or so, perhaps we should look farther afield.

Venus

Venus has long been considered Earth’s ‘twin’ during the 20th Century one estimate put the surface temperature at 47 degrees Celsius and it was even considered an abode for earth-like amphibians. Venus eventually transpired to be a very strange twin; can Electret Discharge Tectonics be applied at Venus?

In this thread it is assumed that terrestrial type planets are not formed by accretion from a solar nebula- instead terrestrial planets are formed in electrical discharges occurring in larger parent bodies. Venus is understood to have formed in this way.

The present characteristics (density, surface gravity etc.) ascribed to Venus would indicate that Venus is electron deficient, at least when we consider the body of the planet. The anomalously slow retrograde rotation period suggests Venus is presently unable to generate an internal ‘ionic’ magnetic field. However, this may not always be so as Venus is currently collecting charge directly from the heliospheric plasma, mainstream astronomy perceives this as a detrimental process- we find such statements as the Venusian atmosphere is being ‘stripped away’ or the planet is ‘losing water’- neither is detrimental and may lead to the development of an ‘electronic’ magnetic field. To understand why, we have to look at the structure of Venus itself.

Given Venus’ size I suggest that the planet’s interior is not too dissimilar to Earth’s as suggested in this thread. With Electret Discharge Tectonics we do not have to postulate a different internal structure for each planet. It is known that Venus exhibits a cometary type discharge, this suggests that despite a shared internal structure slightly different processes are occurring inside Venus.

Venus’ interior contains hydrogen, hydrocarbons, helium, ammonia, oxygen and water and as with Earth these chemical elements are upwelling from the Venusian interior.

Venus’ atmosphere of carbon dioxide provides a clue as to the process occurring inside Venus, surprisingly it turns out that Venus has too much oxygen.

As upwelling methane diffuses through oxygen rich layers of the upper Venusian crust it is oxidised- unlike Earth the oxidised products in this oxygen rich environment are water and carbon dioxide, similarly the products of upwelling silane would be silica and water.

This process is likely to continue until sufficient quantities of oxygen are locked away in surface and subsurface rocks, at least until Venus has suitably ‘rusted’. If suitable quantities of hydrocarbons remain then the oxidized products of methane- water and carbon will come to dominate; this suggests that oceans have not boiled away on Venus.

Recently, water-rich clouds above Aphrodite Terra were discovered the so-called ‘fountain of Aphrodite’. Aphrodite Terra lies at the Venusian equatorial regions and is criss-crossed by snaking faults, from the perspective of this thread it is more likely that these faults are actually discharge channels created during a period of solar system instability. Moreover, an unusual stationary wave was observed in the Venusian atmosphere by the Japanese spacecraft Akatsuki. The 10,000 kilometre long wave remained stationary over Aphrodite Terra!

Venus now presents itself as an analogue of a homopolar motor with Birkeland currents focussed at the north and south polar regions (the northern di-pole revealed by Pioneer Venus Orbiter and the southern vortex revealed by Venus Express) and volatiles issuing from fractured ground at the equator. At the Earth we find similar structures in the magnetosphere- the Polar Cusps, is the Venusian atmosphere acting like a compressed magnetosphere? If so, features normally associated with the Venusian atmosphere such as super-rotation and stationary waves may find analogues in Earth’s magnetosphere.

Planetary geologists attribute many Venusian surface features to volcanism, in my opinion this is questionable- it is typical of mainstream thinking, any ‘hotspot’ or raised surface is due to volcanism; processes unique to Earth are projected to other worlds- even if those worlds are tiny worlds supposedly made of ice! Radar images of the Venusian surface suggest a topography formed by electrical discharges. The observation that the surface consists mainly of extensive flat plains shows no crustal subsidence has occurred, another indication that oxygen has yet to be ‘locked away’ in sufficient quantities.

Plate Tectonics fails at Venus. Electret Discharge Tectonics can be applied at Venus once we understand that the mode of discharge takes a different form. But why stop at Venus? We don’t have to, Electret Discharge Tectonics could equally be applied at Mars or Titan or any other terrestrial body in the solar system- terrestrial bodies that show no evidence of Plate Tectonics.

I've been away from TB forum for a while now... this thread has gained some new splices while I was gone, and I have limited time to address them all. But I would like to address the misplaced comparison of the alleged 148,000 km of spreading with the alleged 40,000 km of subduction/collision zones. This comparison simply has no basis... why?1. The midocean ridges are 3-dimensional zones of upwelling, not just horizontal [linear] spreading. Overlapping flows of upwelling basalt form a large thickening of the rift, as well as the accompanying spreading of the seafloor. 2. The zones of collision are are also 3-dimensional; involving very wide belts of uplift, eg. the Rockies of the US and the Himalayas of central Asia, as well as very high ranges. 3. The increased thickness of the collision zones of the continental crust, ie. the "roots" of the boundary mountain ranges, are more than sufficient to make up for the linear "frontal" figures.4. If subduction must be invoked [however I feel it is unnecessary to do so], immeasurable amounts of seafloor would have been re-assimulated into the mantle. The linear comparison is just not appropriate.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.